| |
| ▲ | losvedir 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How am I reading this? Wasn't the regime mowing down tens of thousands of its own citizens prior to this war? I mean, not a "war" crime, I guess, but it seems ludicrous to give them any "moral victories". | |
| ▲ | unyttigfjelltol 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Iran has for nearly fifty years pursued unilateral hostilities against the US and Israel, including funding numerous terrorist groups and militias to wage war on them. It can’t negotiate its way out of this quagmire because the IRGC’s core ideology and mission is hatred (and hostage-taking). In addition to waging continuous offensive militia operations, it’s been cultivating a conventional and nuclear offensive option which it most definitely would use if it had it, because again, the IRGC’s reason for existence is to “resist” Israel and the US, by which they mean obliterate those nations. What Trump recently has been saying about Iran is exactly what Iran has been saying for decades about the US and Israel. One of those militias went all Leroy Jenkins in 2023 and prematurely initiated the current hot war, which Iran is losing. In frustration, Iran has embarked on a terror campaign of bombing neutral neighbors to punish them for … friendly diplomacy with the US I guess, and bombing civilians in Israel. And annexing an international waterway. What Trump and folks on this board don’t seem to realize is that war with Iran is more like fighting a bunch of lawyers. You hurt them kinetically and they make you feel like you hurt yourself, get all confused. They slaughter 35k of their own people and shut off the Internet; the US mixes up the boundaries of an IRGC naval base in a much more constrained horror and the UN starts strutting around. Narratives do matter for winning wars and between Trump derangement syndrome and the IRGC’s natural cleverness at permanent victimhood, it’s the narrative that’s at risk in a war between great nations that, unfortunately, sadly has been perfectly inevitable for decades. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not unilateral, the US have been deeply involved in Iran since the 50´s and the overthrow of the democratic government in order to allow the US companies to continue to steal Iran's oil. Then of course they had to deal with Irak who invaded them using US weapons and intel. Including use of sarin gas, thanks to US intel. The argument about democracy in Iran is hypocritical given that neither Trump or Israelis care about it at all. They just want weak client States. The Iranians didn't wake up hating the USA one day and a little techouva would be healthy if we want this conflict to end. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you're saying, as soon as a party does something serious against you, say taking your embassy staff hostage (just to select a random thing one might do), then ANY future and continued hostilities, no matter how immoral the means used, are justified, even 50+ years later? I mean, you're singing the praises of long-term revenge. Oh and the 1979 revolution was a socialist revolution that even had support from the KGB. So that's great. Then, of course, anything the US does against Iran's islamist regime is justified according to you! Excellent news, that. Strange, I got a different impression from your tone. P.S. you are now supposed to say that it merely means "you understand why" they act like this, not if it's justified. Even though you absolutely won't understand the US killing a few hundred Iranians in revenge. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm saying that violence between the two countries wasn't unilateral and that the US have a long history of aggression against Iran, culminating now. My post is quite clear. Ending a cycle of violence also requires to accept where you did wrong (i.e "techouva"). The US have been bombing the world since 1943, with for the most part, little effect aside on the suffering of the civilians under fire. The only intelligent move to stop the cycle of violence with Iran was the nuclear deal framework made by Obama. It was of course was terminated by Trump, which worked very well as the current war shows. Bombing Iran during negociations, killing their supreme leader and negociators, commiting war crimes, won't clearly solve anything. When I read such post, I feel that many people supporting the war in the US just have a sadistic instinct that needs to be expressed, whatever the consequences. Hurting (or, as the Trump aides say "fucking") other people won't fix the emptiness of your lives. | | |
| ▲ | unyttigfjelltol 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trump’s bargaining position has been: stop raising foreign armies to attack Israel; stop trying to sneak into the nuclear club, because we know what you’re going to do. Translated to human terms: stop threatening the US and its allies. The US position is not sadism, it’s how every nation except Iran tolerates one another, live and let live. Russia and the US— they competed strongly with one another during the Cold War but generally respected red lines. Russia withdrew its kinetic threat from Cuba, the US knew circa 1998 that expanding NATO through the old Warsaw Pact would make no friends in Moscow. Strong, rules-based brinksmanship all the way around. Iran is just about ideological extremism. Sometimes there are rules, or used to be, but the IRGC signed up a bunch of unprofessional clowns to wage total war on its behalf and, at core, talks like “mutually assured destruction” would be a total “win”, provided Israel was on the other side. If either superpower exposed that kind of philosophy in the Cold War can you imagine the calamity? It’s inherently destabilizing. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Trump's position is to do what the Israelis ask him. Nothing else. Iran doesn't threaten the US. On the other hand, the US has multiple times helped Iran's enemies (Irak) commit atrocities[0] or enforced a coup to continue stealing its oil. As stated by Tulsi Gabbard, there was no imminent threat to the US before the war. Few things: - Please don't talk about “rules-based brinksmanship” when the US commits bombing and decapitation strikes during negotiations. Or when they send real estate developers to discuss nuclear programs[1]. - Iran had agreed to limit its enrichment and allow inspectors in to verify it. Of course, it was too much for Israelis who didn't want another competing power in the region. The end of the agreement led Iran to restart enriching its uranium at higher rates, having the (expected) complete opposite effect than what was wanted. Who's the clown here? Trump. - The US' “ally”, Israel, currently has a far-right religious Zionist government that ticks all the boxes for ideological extremism. It also has a MAD doctrine regarding its illegal nukes. [2] - Hezbollah was born after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. While it was structured by Iran, its ranks are made of Lebanese citizens. Many non-Shia Lebanese will agree that it's the main defense against the invasion of their country, which is desired by the Zionist right to achieve their “greater Israel” project[3]. While Hezbollah is problematic now, its removal should be accompanied by a commitment by Israel not to invade its neighbors and to stop the illegal colonization of the West Bank. In general, it's a recurrent strategy by Israel: favor frictions, violence, and fuel the most extremist of your opponents, to justify retaliation, and then allow you to extend your position. For instance, Israel was helping Gulf States to fund Hamas before the recent war started.[4] The US is an accomplice, as Israeli money heavily funds its politicians. It's not an ally. [0]: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/cia-files-prove-america-... [1]: https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2026-03-11/us-negotiators-w... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option [3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/26/what-is-greater-isr... [4]: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-artic... |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They already targetted civilian infrastructure, so they already commited war crime. They also threatened to attack universities wh8ch is war crime on itself (after attack on their universities). |
|
